4.2 Article

Symptoms to Use for Diagnostic Criteria of Hwa-Byung, an Anger Syndrome

期刊

PSYCHIATRY INVESTIGATION
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 7-12

出版社

KOREAN NEUROPSYCHIATRIC ASSOC
DOI: 10.4306/pi.2009.6.1.7

关键词

Hwa-byung; Symptoms; Anger syndrome; Anger; Depression

资金

  1. Yonsei University Medical Center [4-2006-0114]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective The aim of this study was to identify the characteristic symptoms which can be used for the diagnosis of hwa-byung, a culture-related anger syndrome in Korea. Methods The symptoms of the Hwa-byung Scale were correlated with the Korean versions of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (K-HDRS) and the State and Trait Anger Inventory (K-STAXI) in 89 patients, who were diagnosed as having major depressive disorder, dysthymic disorder, anxiety disorders, somatoform disorders, or adjustment disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria and who had self-labeled hwa-byung. Also, the symptoms of the Hwa-byung Scale were correlated with each other. Results The symptoms of the Hwa-byung Scale which were significantly correlated with the state anger of the K-STAXI but not with the depressive mood (item 1 of K-HDRS) included feelings of unfairness, subjective anger, external anger, beat sensation, pushing-Lip in the chest, dry mouth, and sighing. The symptoms which were significantly correlated with state anger and depressed mood included respiratory stuffiness, haan and hate. The symptoms which were not significantly correlated with depressed mood and state anger included going-out, epigastric mass, palpitation, headache/pain, frightening easily, many thoughts, and much pleading. These symptoms also showed higher correlation with each other in the correlation matrix. Conclusion Our Findings suggest that hwa-byung is different from depressive syndrome in terms of its symptom profile, and Suggest what symptoms Should be included in the diagnostic criteria of hwa-byung, an anger disorder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据